A Contradictory Stand

Published:First published inPravdaNo. 81, June 27 (14), 1917.

      Published according to thePravdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages88-90.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandC. FarrellPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2000You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

TheCongress resolution in today’s papers condemning our Party
      will no doubt be compared by every class-conscious worker and
      soldier with our Party’s statement addressed to the All-Russia
      Congress of Soviets, a statement made public on the 11th, and
      printed in today’sPravda.[1]

Thecontradictory nature of the stand taken by the Congress
      leaders has been revealed by their resolution and particularly
      by our statement.

“Thebasis for the success and strength of the Russian
      revolution is the unity of all revolutionary democrats—the
      workers, soldiers, and peasants," reads the first and cardinal
      clause of the Congress resolution. And, of course, this point
      would undoubtedly he correct if what it meant by “unity” wereunity in the struggle against the counter-revolution. But what if through their leaders a certain number of the
      "workers, soldiers and peasants" form a bloc and units with the
      counter-revolution? Isn’t it clear that this section of the
      “democrats” isin realityno longer
      “revolutionary”?

TheNarodniks (Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the Mensheviks
      mill probably be indignant at the mere fact that we think it
      possible, that we think it conceivable, for any section of the
      "workers, soldiers and peasants" to “unite” with the
      counter-revolution.

Tothose who attempted to obscure our arguments and hush up the
      issue by indignation, we would reply by simply referring them to
      the third clause of the same resolution: ”...the  resistanceof the counter-revolutionary  groups  of
	thepropertied classes is growing." This is an
	important statement. It would have been perfectly correct if
	it had said: the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and landowners
	(insteadof the "propertied classes", which include the
	well-to-do section of the petty bourgeoisie).

Unquestionably,the resistance of the bourgeoisie is growing.

Butthen it is the bourgeoisie that control the majority in the
      Provisional Government with whom the Socialist- Revolutionary
      and the Menshevik leaders have united, not only in general
      political terms, but also organisationally, in one institution,
      the Ministry!

Thisis the pivot of the contradictory stand taken by the
      leaders of the Congress, this is the fundamental source of the
      instability of their entire policy. They are allied with the
      bourgeoisie via the government, where they are controlled by the
      bourgeois Ministers forming the majority. At the same time, they
      areforcedto admit that "the resistance of the counter-revolutionary
      groups of the propertied classes is growing"’

Itis obvious that, under the circumstances, the party of the
      revolutionary proletariat can accept “unity” with the
      “revolutionary” democrats (revolutionary in word but not deed)
      only up to a certain point. We are for unity with them as long
      as they fight against the counter-revolution. We are against
      unity with them as long as they ally themselves with the
      counter-revolution.

The"growing resistance" of the counter-revolutionary
      bourgeoisie is an urgent problem posed by reality. To evade this
      main and fundamental issue through non-committal phrases about
      "the unity and co-ordinated actions of the revolutionary
      democrats", thereby glossing over the unity or co-ordination
      between a section of the revolutionary democrats and the
      counter-revolution, would be illogical and foolish.

Hence,all the arguments in the Congress resolution condemning
      our demonstration as “clandestine” and maintaining that mass
      actions and demonstrations are permissible only with the
      knowledge or consent of the Soviets, fall to the ground as a
      matter of principle. These arguments are of no consequence at
      all. The workers’ party will never accept them, as we have
      already said in our statement to the All-Russia Congress. For
      every demonstration ismerelya means of agitation as long as it is peaceful, and you can
      neither ban agitation not impose uniformity on it.

Onthe formal side, the resolution is even weaker. To ban or
      decree you must be vested with state power. First achieve that,
      you gentlemen who now lead the Congress—we are in favour of
      it, although you are our opponents—and then you will have
      the right to ban or decree. At the moment you do not wield state
      power, at the moment you allow your selves to be swayed by the
      ten bourgeois Ministers—you are caught in the meshes of
      your own weakness and indecision.

Phraseslike a "clearly expressed will", and so on, will not
      do. A will, if it is the will of the state, must be expressed in
      the form of alawestablished by thestate.
      Otherwise the word “will” is an empty sound. The moment you
      thought oflaw, gentlemen, you would have been
      certain to recall that the Constitution of a free republiccannotban peaceful demonstrations or any mass actions by
      any party or group.

Acontradictory stand has bred very strange revolutionary
      ideas—ideas as to the struggle against the
      counter-revolution, ideas about the state (Constitution), and
      ideas of law in general. With the furious abuse against our
      Party refuted, nothing is left, nothing whatsoever!

Despitethe furious abuse against our proposed demonstration,
      the demonstration is to be held a week later.

[1]Referenceis to the statement which the Central Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.(B.) and the Bureau of the Bolshevik group at the
First All-Russia Congress of Soviets made regarding the ban on
the peaceful demonstration appointed by the Bolshevik Party for
June 10 (23), 1917. The statement exposed the provocative conduct
of the Menshevik and S.R. loaders of the Congress of Soviets, who
banned the demonstration, and the counter-revolutionary policies
of the Provisional Government. It warned that the revolution was
in danger, and called oil the working class to be staunch and
vigilant.

Thestatement was road at the joint meeting of the Congress
Steering Committee, the Executive Committee of the Petrograd
Soviet, the Executive Committee of the Congress of Peasants’
Deputies, and the bureaus of all Congress parties on June 11 (24).
The Bolsheviks had wanted the statement to be read at the Congress
sitting on June 12 (25), but the chairman of the meeting denied
the Bolsheviks the floor. The statement was therefore handed to the
Congress Steering Committee. The same sitting passed a resolution
condemning the Bolshevik Party despite the fact that the
Bolsheviks had called off the demonstration.